How many families are there with a household income of 80k with neither partner earning over the higher tax threshold?

I don't know if anyone (even the government) know that - since I don't think they have anyway of "joining" my tax records with my wifes (which then leads to a question of how they will police the Child Benefit claim?).

However whilst 80k is the extreme any couple with children earning a combined 43-86k where both are below the tax threshold are the "winners" in this. There will be plenty of professionals with kids who fall into that category - teachers, nurses, designers, programmers, scientists...

Jambo - jam bo - Member
For those people who earn just over the £44k threshold, pay more into your pension to reduce your taxable income to just below the threshold. You will then remain entitled to child benefit and get full rate tax relief on your additional pension contribution. Double bubble.

Mmm, but the threshold is falling, and inflation is rising so unless you are in the fortunate position of being consistently cash positive every month you might find that actually you need that money to maintain the standard of living you want for your family. If you have enough surplus cash that it really doesn't matter then screwing the system for that last £1k then you are almost as much a parasite on society as the benefit scroungers who aren't looking for work etc.

I do object to the fact that their next door neighbours both earning £40k each (family income of £80k, with two personal tax allowances deducted from it meaning a take home pay of roughly 60k per annum) will still be entitled to the benefit. That probably seems even more wrong to his neighbour where one parent earns £80k and takes home just 53k...

Ah - it is just good old politics of envy then? I have huge sympathy for the poor bloke only taking home £53k - how will he survive without CB? Where do I send the food parcels?

pretty sure that more money does mean more rich SBZ. Anyway lets test this scientifically why not give me say £500 per month and I will let you know if I feel richer and you can let me know if you feel poorer...i am on the edge of my seat with excitement to just know the answer

A shame, as a lot of the time he[TJ] gets stick for saying things which are right in the wrong way.

True but plenty just want to attack him DS does seem to be a bit upset and trying to argue for not much reason and dragging the thread all over the place to achieve this..i had no idea the kill file thing upset you so much

Reducing consumption is one way of reducing CO2 emission, but by no means the only way, killing half the population is another.

Jesus wept you got worse would we reduce C02 because 50% use less than 100% you are just arguing about method to reduce consumption now.
DS you are abright fella why you doing this

Food for a family of 4, or maybe more accurately a weekly supermarket shop (inc cleaning stuff, bog roll, whatever) probably about £100 a week.

i reckon circ £50 tbh but veg is so much cheaper than meat, cheeses etc and you can never eat out

I've just done the maths and my 40% taxable earnings+payrise won't add up to the £1752.40 CB I will receive.
So, in order to be better off financially I'll have to ask the boss to cut my salary and NOT give me a payrise.

how terrible to be trapped in poverty with the other top 10% of earners. At least you dont need to live like stig and in a dump like those less well of than you who cannot afford a 1 k mortgage , every cloud eh

Though strictly speaking it's not - I'm not suggesting the rules should be changed to penalise him just because he's better off, without there being any benefit to other people.

Can I just do a quick summary for those who don't get it. The aim of this change is to save money (which could be used to support the less well off). Not to penalise people who earn more. Applying it on a means tested basis to all those who take home more as a family than a single earner higher tax payer would cost more to implement than the extra amount it would bring in over doing it this way. Therefore it would save less money. Dual earners who are both just below the threshold get lucky.

Can I just do a quick summary for those who don't get it. The aim of this change is to save money (which could be used to support the less well off). Not to penalise people who earn more. Applying it on a means tested basis to all those who take home more as a family than a single earner higher tax payer would cost more to implement than the extra amount it would bring in over doing it this way. Therefore it would save less money. Dual earners who are both just below the threshold get lucky.

Aracer, thats about right (although not just those just below the threshold two people on 25k each are still better off than one on 50!).

AFAIK they haven't actually worked out how to implement this yet in a practical way that would be any cheaper than having a single houshold income threshold, so it remains to be seen if HMRC for the first time ever can make a process efficient and effective and get a net saving!

The chancellor said today: "But the principle that it's not fair to ask someone who's earning say £20- or 25,000 to pay for someone who's on £80- or £100,000 to get child benefit is one that I think is very important." Ignoring the worrying fact that the chancellor seems to have no grasp on the fact that the lower earner pays considerably less tax than the higher earner and would be entitled to the same level of CB - his 'political point' makes sense. But under the "new rules" an household earning 45k will be subsidising one earning 80k, indeed so will a household with two minimum wage earners (a combined income (before tax) of 25k per annum). he didn't reply to my letter pointing this out when he first announced it so I doubt he cares now either!

The tax system used to work on the basis of couples and transferable allowances. However, that opens up a whole new can of worms regarding the definition of what is a couple.

Druidh, there were some murmurs about reintroducing such an approach. Interestingly the benefits systems has managed to overcome the issue of when are a "couple" a "couple", but of course that is usually about reducing payments because someone's spouse/partner is expected to support them rather than rely on the government.

I've just done the maths and my 40% taxable earnings+payrise won't add up to the £1752.40 CB I will receive.
So, in order to be better off financially I'll have to ask the boss to cut my salary and NOT give me a payrise.

Yes, for one year maybe, but next year when you get another payrise will you not be better off if it's that close for you?

Had the same discussion with my missus, she'd be 'worse off' for a year, then better off for the rest of her working life...

The chancellor said today: "But the principle that it's not fair to ask someone who's earning say £20- or 25,000 to pay for someone who's on £80- or £100,000 to get child benefit is one that I think is very important."

Whoa, stop there!

Ok lets actually read the he's just said.

That a low-earning tax-payer should not be subsidising a higher earning tax-payer.

One example leaps out, but they'll be hundreds more; what about winter fuel allowance - currently paid to 500,000 higher-rate paying pensioners?

Yes, for one year maybe, but next year when you get another payrise will you not be better off if it's that close for you?

Had the same discussion with my missus, she'd be 'worse off' for a year, then better off for the rest of her working life...

Or indeed the current trend is to lower the 40% tax threshold (to offset the intended plan to get the personal allowance up to £10k) in which case even without subsequent payrises you may cross the boundary. Increased pension contributions, childcare vouchers or a new bike on B2W etc might be away to temporarily mitigate the effect.

I've just done the maths and my 40% taxable earnings+payrise won't add up to the £1752.40 CB I will receive.
So, in order to be better off financially I'll have to ask the boss to cut my salary and NOT give me a payrise.

I love this country.

warning, this is a shameless troll:

would that be the same country that's been giving you £1752/year to help pay for your kids despite the fact that you're already doing quite nicely for yourself?

that country?

why not be grateful that you've been allowed to ride the gravy train for so long?

or, maybe you're right, you deserve even more help, why not try life in sweden?

I'm just going to take issue with the definition of the word "elite". To be honest, top 10% doesn't really sound elite. Top 1% sounds more elite. Like championship compared to premier league, or world's best armies or something.

Also, how do you measure richness? Is it disposable income or income earned? If you took on a big mortgage to ensure your wife and kids had a permanent roof over their heads, and that took up a large share of your [sole] income, would that make you rich? Even if you couldn't afford to go on holidays, or drive anything but a beat up fourth hand car that you had to fix yourself?

I'm willing to bet you would not feel rich in that situation. Level maybe. Struggling possibly. Not rich.

This is me...I don't feel rich by any means. Perhaps if you live outside the South East or bought a house in the mid '90s, yes. But I also don't feel I deserve to receive benefits.

The chancellor said today: "But the principle that it's not fair to ask someone who's earning say £20- or 25,000 to pay for someone who's on £80- or £100,000 to get child benefit is one that I think is very important."

The chancellor is a **** moron. Someone earning 80-100k a year is subsidising pretty much everyone else through their higher rate tax contributions.